What's Your Best Argument For God? - Think Atheist2016-12-09T13:57:38Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/what-s-your-best-argument-for-god?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1311438&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noShow me the peer-reviewed jou…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13515072013-07-13T22:58:48.641Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>Show me the peer-reviewed journal article - then I'LL be surprised!</p>
<p>Show me the peer-reviewed journal article - then I'LL be surprised!</p> Would this "Absolute phenomen…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13513512013-07-13T22:53:13.661ZReg The Fronkey Farmerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RegPerry
<p>Would this "Absolute phenomena" be the Christian god or one of the other ones?</p>
<p>Would this "Absolute phenomena" be the Christian god or one of the other ones?</p> I do not think the big bang '…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13512722013-07-13T22:47:15.222ZBop Emersonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/BopEmerson
<p>I do not think the big bang 'started everything'. I only used it as an example because some people believe that it did.</p>
<p>In my paper I apply the proper mathematics in considering the possibility of an infinite series. Infinity is a highly counter-intuitive subject that leads to many bizarre circumstances sometimes called paradoxes. Likewise, the conclusion I have reached may seem counter-intuitive to anyone not versed in the intricacies and oddities of infinity. Basically I assume that…</p>
<p>I do not think the big bang 'started everything'. I only used it as an example because some people believe that it did.</p>
<p>In my paper I apply the proper mathematics in considering the possibility of an infinite series. Infinity is a highly counter-intuitive subject that leads to many bizarre circumstances sometimes called paradoxes. Likewise, the conclusion I have reached may seem counter-intuitive to anyone not versed in the intricacies and oddities of infinity. Basically I assume that no Absolute phenomenon exists, which implies that everything is caused by something which precedes it (either in time or some other dimension). From this I derive a contradiction, proving that at least one Absolute phenomenon exists which either has no cause whatsoever or somehow causes itself (i.e. it "just is"). Of course this Absolute phenomenon may <em>itself</em> be some kind of infinite series - I wouldn't be surprised.</p> tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13510852013-07-13T19:37:10.779ZStregahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MzStrega
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/IvqemBCauJFWMCUwwLcetAOCpQIcxq0l2BilbW-Utu1o1G0e4wBuYCxqYkYkwyiwxmTHZIkPsOECg*F5bOw6uXC1LXiIzcwT/godseeksgaps.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/IvqemBCauJFWMCUwwLcetAOCpQIcxq0l2BilbW-Utu1o1G0e4wBuYCxqYkYkwyiwxmTHZIkPsOECg*F5bOw6uXC1LXiIzcwT/godseeksgaps.jpg" width="420"/></a></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/IvqemBCauJFWMCUwwLcetAOCpQIcxq0l2BilbW-Utu1o1G0e4wBuYCxqYkYkwyiwxmTHZIkPsOECg*F5bOw6uXC1LXiIzcwT/godseeksgaps.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/IvqemBCauJFWMCUwwLcetAOCpQIcxq0l2BilbW-Utu1o1G0e4wBuYCxqYkYkwyiwxmTHZIkPsOECg*F5bOw6uXC1LXiIzcwT/godseeksgaps.jpg" width="420"/></a></p> My objection is to the seemin…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13510802013-07-13T19:13:05.739Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>My objection is to the seeming fact that you and your dad don't have enough of the courage of your own convictions to submit your math to an accepted mathematical journal for peer review, critique, and potential publication.</p>
<p>My objection is to the seeming fact that you and your dad don't have enough of the courage of your own convictions to submit your math to an accepted mathematical journal for peer review, critique, and potential publication.</p> No, our objection is to your…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13510772013-07-13T19:03:50.549ZDave Ghttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DaveG
<p>No, our objection is to your equivocation of "We don't know" with "God did it!" You may not phrase it in those exact terms, but as Gallup pointed out, you're just engaging in a (mathematical) god of the gaps fallacy.</p>
<p>No, our objection is to your equivocation of "We don't know" with "God did it!" You may not phrase it in those exact terms, but as Gallup pointed out, you're just engaging in a (mathematical) god of the gaps fallacy.</p> I'm not sure why you think th…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13510752013-07-13T18:36:32.035ZStregahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MzStrega
<p>I'm not sure why you think that anything 'started everything'. Why do you think the Big bang did that? We know it started existence as we perceive it, but we do not know if there was anything before it. For all we know, there is no beginning, and our Big Bang could be one of an infinite series of them.</p>
<p>Your problem of 'what started everything', may not actually exist. Have you thought about that?</p>
<p>I'm not sure why you think that anything 'started everything'. Why do you think the Big bang did that? We know it started existence as we perceive it, but we do not know if there was anything before it. For all we know, there is no beginning, and our Big Bang could be one of an infinite series of them.</p>
<p>Your problem of 'what started everything', may not actually exist. Have you thought about that?</p> So basically your objection i…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13512512013-07-13T18:28:13.313ZBop Emersonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/BopEmerson
<p>So basically your objection is to the existence of Absolute phenomena, because there <em>always</em> exists a naturalistic explanation, right?</p>
<p>And consequently, an infinite regress is required - otherwise we would have an Absolute phenomenon that started everything, right? Or did you have something else in mind?</p>
<p>So basically your objection is to the existence of Absolute phenomena, because there <em>always</em> exists a naturalistic explanation, right?</p>
<p>And consequently, an infinite regress is required - otherwise we would have an Absolute phenomenon that started everything, right? Or did you have something else in mind?</p> I can't wait for that peer-re…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13513342013-07-13T16:58:37.172Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>I can't wait for that peer-reviewed article to come out in a qualified journal of mathematics!</p>
<p>If anyone would like to reserve a copy, just send your money to me here and I will hold on to it until we see the article, and will will it to my kids with special instructions to will it to theirs, so as you can see, your money is safe with me.</p>
<p>I can't wait for that peer-reviewed article to come out in a qualified journal of mathematics!</p>
<p>If anyone would like to reserve a copy, just send your money to me here and I will hold on to it until we see the article, and will will it to my kids with special instructions to will it to theirs, so as you can see, your money is safe with me.</p> Oh, I know that, I just want…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-13:1982180:Comment:13511902013-07-13T16:01:44.987Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>Oh, I know that, I just want to be sure that everyone else sees it too.</p>
<p>I have a little card trick I play with kids, that allows them to select a card, and for me to tell them what it is. It involves, bottom line, 20 cards that I divide into five piles of 4 each, face down. I know exactly which pile their card is in, via card counting, and in fact, which card it is, so in the end, that pile must still be available, so I ask them to choose two piles - if one they choose is the pile…</p>
<p>Oh, I know that, I just want to be sure that everyone else sees it too.</p>
<p>I have a little card trick I play with kids, that allows them to select a card, and for me to tell them what it is. It involves, bottom line, 20 cards that I divide into five piles of 4 each, face down. I know exactly which pile their card is in, via card counting, and in fact, which card it is, so in the end, that pile must still be available, so I ask them to choose two piles - if one they choose is the pile with their card in it, I tell them we'll "<em>burn</em>" (discard) the other three, if they choose two that do NOT contain their card, then we burn those two. The point is, that by the time we whittle down the pile of cards to the actual one they originally chose, they believe that their choices have guided me to their card, where in actuality, I have manipulated their choices all down the line.</p>
<p>Same song, different verse --</p>